The applicant is aware of socket holding devices which provide a plurality of wells into which a socket can be placed. However, most of these prior art devices provide wells which receive sockets. However, when the socket holder is turned upside down, the sockets would normally then fall out of the wells.
Some prior art designs provide a round pin in the center of the well which does not grab a socket but instead guides the socket into the well. When these designs are inverted, the sockets fall out. Others provide a square pin in the center of the well which does not grab a socket but instead guides the socket into the well. When these designs are inverted, the sockets fall out. Furthermore, these square pin designs require the user to orient the sockets 1 in a desired position when installing as the sockets 1 cannot be turned after installing if one desires to read the sizing information on the exterior surface of the sockets because the socket shaft 14 is square and usually of similar perimeter dimensions as the pin thereby preventing rotation.
Some prior art designs incorporates a round or square post that uses an interference fit with the side walls of the socket shaft 14 and are primarily used in the packaging and security of the socket in the retail store. These designs are typically broken when the socket is removed. {1} Rotation of the round post designs might be achieved but it is difficult due to the force of the interference fit. Other such round post design {such as Dembicks, U.S. Pat. No. 5,715,951 is believed to provide} relies on a cam action to provide the interference fit necessary to hold the socket with the side walls of the socket shaft 30 and not the socket grooves 2 but this design limits the rotation of the socket in the lock position {4} and a secondary motion for the cam other than pulling the socket from the post must be imputed by the user to lock the socket in place. Square post designs {such as Stanton, U.S. Pat. No. 4,421,230} do not allow of such rotation because the socket shaft 14 is square. {3} Also these post designs are not believed to work well because when the socket is removed from the post, the post either breaks the hiding features and with each attach and detach of the socket causes a reduction in its interference function until such point the post cannot retain the socket.
Some prior art designs {such as Stanton, U.S. Pat. No. 4,421,230} incorporates a round or square post that grips (by use of a snap-fit design) the socket by the back face 200 of the socket. Again these designs are believed to be primarily used in the packaging and security of the socket in the retail store and are typically not used again once the socket is removed. {1} Rotation of the socket can be achieved with the round post but not with the square post designs because the socket shaft 14 is square. {3} These designs are not believed to work satisfactorily because when the socket is removed from the post, the post breaks the holding features. The normal way to remove the socket from the holding feature is to use a tool (screwdriver or pliers) to pry the holding feature away from the back face of the socket. Also, this design is believed to be limited to socket sizes that have a socket head-nut or bolt size 201 that is smaller than the effective diameter of the socket shaft 14. In this case, a different size or design of the post is necessary.
Another prior art design {as disclosed in Mu, U.S. Patent Application No. U.S. 2006/0254940} incorporates a square post that grips the socket by the socket grooves 2. The periphery grooves 2 located in the socket shaft 14 are used to hold the socket on to the ratchet or extension to install and/or extract bolts, nuts or screws. {1} Again, rotation of the socket cannot be achieved because the socket shaft 14 and post are square and of similar dimensions. {5} also the design is considered a two piece design with the socket retaining feature as one piece and the base or tray to which the socket will rest being the secondary piece. This design would be a concern for manufacturing and assembly costs because of the two-piece design.
One improvement over this construction as is available on the market includes magnetic socket holders which have magnets along the sides or bottom of the wells. However, once the socket is placed into a well having a magnet, the socket still cannot be easily turned to view the information normally provided on the exterior surface of a socket such as its size and if the holder is inverted or “knocked over”/vibrated and the magnets are not believed to be strong enough to overcome the weight of the biggest sockets, the socket can “fall out”. {5} Also the design is considered by the applicant to be a two piece design with the socket retaining feature (magnet) as one piece and the base or tray to which the socket rests being the secondary piece. This design too would be a concern for manufacturing and assembly costs because of the two-piece design.
Accordingly, there is believed to be a need for improvement over prior art socket holding devices. A design that can simultaneously carry out at least some, if not all of, the functions of {1} an installed socket is allowed to freely rotate to see the sizing information on the exterior surface of the socket, {2} is held with such a sufficient force that the socket cannot detach by itself when the fixture is inverted or “knocked over/vibrated”, {3} allowed to be installed and uninstalled multiple times without losing the function of grip, {4} requires no secondary motion apart from pulling the socket of the holding device to remove or release the socket, and {5} consists of a one-piece design to reduce manufacturing and assembly costs.